A new study from the widely respected National Bureau of Economic Research released this week has confirmed beyond question that the left's race-baiting attacks on the housing market (the Community Reinvestment Act--enacted under Carter, made shockingly more aggressive under Clinton) is directly responsible for imploding the housing market and destroying the economy.

The study painstakingly sorted through failed home loans that caused the housing market collapse and identified an overwhelming connection between them and CRA mortgages.

Again, let's review:

-President Bush went to Congress repeatedly for years warning them that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were going to destroy the economy (17 times in 2008 alone). Democrats continuously ignored him, shut down his proposals along party lines and continued raiding the institutions for campaign contributions on their way down.
Fox News shows timeline for economic meltdown
Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown

-John McCain also co-sponsored urgently critical reforms that would have prevented the housing market collapse, but Democrats shut that down as well, along party lines, and even openly ridiculed anyone who suggested reforms were necessary...to protect their taxpayer-funded campaign contributions as the economy raced uncontrollably toward the cliff.

-No one was making bad loans to unqualified people until Democrats came along and threatened to drag banks into court and have them fined and branded as racists if they didn't go along with the left's Affirmative Action lending policies...all while federally insuring their losses. Even the New York Times warned in the late 1990s that Democrats continuing to force banks into lowering their standards would lead to this exact catastrophe.

-Obama himself is even on the record personally helping sue one lender (Citibank) into lowering its lending standards to include people from extremely poor and unstable areas, which even one of the left's favorite blatantly partisan "fact-checkers," Snopes, admits (while pretending to 'set the record straight').

-Even The New York Times admitted that there is "little evidence" of any connection between the "Republican" deregulation measures Obama blames, like the Gramm-Bleach-Liley Act (signed into law by a Democrat), and the collapse of the housing market.

But non-Fox media have spent years deliberately and relentlessly inoculating people against the facts, training them to mindlessly blame Bush for being in charge when Democrat policies destroyed the economy. So here we sit, to this day, still watching Obama excuse and shrug off endless economic failures, illegal government takeovers and utter national bankruptcy with zero accountability.

Just like you, I haven't. And I've been pretty clear about that. I also haven't tried to tell people what it says, other than what the abstract that I posted seems to indicate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu

I'm getting my ass kicked? Is this another misuse of words thing?

If you are referencing what I think you are, then I have read it.

There's already been a ton of work by really good analysts on this. One paper that argues that because of the perception that Fannie and Freddie were moving into subprime they were responsible for the credit crisis doesn't invalidate the several other reports/books/work who have demonstrated empirically that the CRA played almost no role in the crisis.

You've already admitted that you haven't read shit about the crisis. You've admitted that you don't care to put in the effort. The only thing you are out to achieve in these arguments is regurgitating the gop's talking points on the matter.

There's already been a ton of work by really good analysts on this. One paper that argues that because of the perception that Fannie and Freddie were moving into subprime they were responsible for the credit crisis doesn't invalidate the several other reports/books/work who have demonstrated empirically that the CRA played almost no role in the crisis.

You've already admitted that you haven't read shit about the crisis. You've admitted that you don't care to put in the effort. The only thing you are out to achieve in these arguments is regurgitating the gop's talking points on the matter.

You are a parrot.

There you go again. I'm not regurgitating anyone's talking points.

And, no, you haven't read it. That much is crystal clear.

__________________

“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.” - Hillary Clinton

1) I did read it. Not note-taking reading, but far more than a skim.
2) My posts were germane to the fallacious talking points brought forth in the OP and mikey23545, who I responded to.
3) Your inability to discern past and present debunking is a failure of your thought process, not mine. Stop projecting and deflecting.

Then again, if KCNative's posts are to be believed, it's obvious why you don't want to actually discuss the merits of the claims, because you don't know anything about the subject.

__________________
9/3/2016:

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28

ball on the 7 and you can't even get 3.....yeah MU still has no QB and no line

1) I did read it. Not note-taking reading, but far more than a skim.
2) My posts were germane to the fallacious talking points brought forth in the OP and mikey23545, who I responded to.
3) Your inability to discern past and present debunking is a failure of your thought process, not mine. Stop projecting and deflecting.

Then again, if KCNative's posts are to be believed, it's obvious why you don't want to actually discuss the merits of the claims, because you don't know anything about the subject.

I know you hadn't read it when you pretended to. Maybe you have by now, I don't know. But you hadn't then. Sorry bud, I'm not falling for your bullshit.

__________________

“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.” - Hillary Clinton

Few quibbles, CRA was basically unchanged from the 70's until Clinton changed it in 94 or 97.

Second, Fannie and Freddie lowered their standards in 2003 to regain market share they lost to private labels.

Third, Mortgage backed securities had been around for decades prior to the financial crisis. Credit Default Swaps and other arcane derivatives were invented right before the crisis.

Greenspan's radical departure from Fed history with using interest rates to target asset prices is much more responsible than you suggest. The reason Wall St was so eager to buy up those mortgages was because Fixed Income managers (bond funds, trusts, time dated funds) needed yield. Greenspan pushed rates so low they couldn't earn a decent return on bonds. They were desperate for yield so they snapped up the "AAA" rated mortgage backed securities. When they couldn't get enough of those, Wall St got even more creative and came up with the CDOs (collateralized debt obligations) and sliced and diced CDOs and MBS.

The CRA basically played no role. The amount of loans that were CRA loans and their default rates were low. Private labels (Countrywide and others) drove the mortgage crisis. Their nonconforming loans are what broke the models.

The role I attribute to the CRA is more ideological than direct. To wit, the CRA helped break down prior lending standards. Once you're across the line of what lenders formerly considered prudence, sometimes people get into a sort of mania of rule breaking. That might be a minor role, but I think it's more than "no role"

As for Greenspan, I believe even he admitted that he didn't quite realize the effect that mortgage backed securities and the whole derivatives market had on liquidity. To put it in Keynesian terms, the multiplier effect was much greater than he thought. He was pumping more liquidity than his prior experience would lead him to believe from the indicators at his disposal.

As for Wall Street chasing after MBS and derivatives in pursuit of return, isn't that the very stuff of more market liquidity than he realized?

That must be why all of my claims about their findings were completely off base.

You claimed that Paul Krugman had refuted the study two years before the study was published. That tells me that you not only hadn't read the study, but that you didn't even have a clue when the study was written. Let's stop pretending.

__________________

“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.” - Hillary Clinton

You claimed that Paul Krugman had refuted the study two years before the study was published. That tells me that you not only hadn't read the study, but that you didn't even have a clue when the study was written. Let's stop pretending.

If you claim that gravity is a myth, and provide no new data to disprove it, do I need to prove it all on my own, or can I rely on Newton?

__________________
9/3/2016:

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28

ball on the 7 and you can't even get 3.....yeah MU still has no QB and no line

For those of you who have never been in the business...50 mill plus is damn great. Almost ridiculous.

Really? That's like one loan a week...

__________________
Thanks, Trump for the civics lesson. We are learning so much about impeachment, the 25th Amendment, order of succession, nepotism, separation of powers, 1st Amendment, obstruction of justice, the emoluments clause, Logan Act, conflicts of interest, collusion, sanctions, oligarchs, money laundering and so much more.